-
738 F.2d 535·
1st Cir.·
1984-07-11
·cited 2×
The court held that the defendants were foreclosed from attacking the district court's amendment of the judgment because their counsel had agreed to the procedure for correcting the perceived inconsistency in the jury verdicts.
-
648 F.2d 919·
3d Cir.·
1981-05-12
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court erred in denying the motion for rehearing solely on the grounds of untimely filing and service.
-
2016 WL 6037535·
M.D. Fla.·
2024-09-30
·cited 1×
The court denied the petitioner's motion to alter or amend the judgment, finding no manifest error of law or fact in its prior denial of the habeas corpus petition.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2026-01-07
The court denied the respondent's motion to alter or amend the judgment, finding no legal basis for reconsideration or a stay.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2026-01-03
The court denied the respondent's motion for reconsideration and stay of the order returning the children to Venezuela, but subsequently stayed the return order due to an FAA flight ban.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-12-29
The court held that when a jury award contains an identifiable amount not permitted by law, the court may modify the verdict without offering a new trial, as this is a correction of legal error, not a traditional remittitur.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-12-17
A pro se plaintiff cannot seek reconsideration of a voluntary dismissal under Rule 59(e) when no judgment was entered, and a Rule 60(b) motion is untimely and lacks valid grounds.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-12-04
The court granted the defendant's motion to proceed pro se but denied his motion to alter or amend the judgment awarding attorney fees.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-11-25
The court denied defendants' motion for reconsideration, finding no clear error in its prior summary judgment order regarding patent infringement.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-11-17
The court denied the petitioner's motion to alter or amend the judgment, finding that the motion did not present grounds for reconsideration and that the underlying claims were frivolous.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-08-21
The court held that the plaintiff's motion to reopen the case was denied because it did not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and was not filed within a reasonable time.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-07-24
The court denied the plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment, finding no manifest error of law or fact and that the plaintiff failed to present newly discovered evidence.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-06-03
The court recommended denying the defendants' motion for reconsideration because the arguments raised were procedurally flawed, contrary to prior positions, and unsupported by controlling precedent.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-05-22
The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion, denying reconsideration but granting leave to amend the complaint.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-04-23
The court denied Plaintiff's motions to alter or amend the judgment and denied his motions to stay execution, finding no basis for reconsideration and no grounds to waive the supersedeas bond requirement.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-03-25
The court held that a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) must be based on newly discovered evidence or manifest error, and the petitioner failed to meet this standard for his claims.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-03-19
The court denied the plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment, finding it untimely and lacking merit.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-02-26
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and for leave to amend.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-01-28
The court denied the plaintiff's motions to alter the judgment and for copies, finding no grounds for reconsideration and that further amendment or appeal in forma pauperis would be futile or not in good faith.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-10-24
The court denied the plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment, finding no grounds for reconsideration.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-09-23
The court denied the plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment, finding no manifest error of law or fact in its prior grant of summary judgment for the defendants.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-07-31
The court denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration because the cited Supreme Court decision did not constitute an intervening change in controlling law that would alter the prior judgment.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-07-22
The court denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration because he failed to provide grounds warranting such relief.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-07-11
Henderson, a state prisoner, sought federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging a state speedy trial violation. The district court dismissed the petition as premature for lack of exhaustion of state remedies and because § 2241 is limited to federal constitutio
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-05-03
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a new trial or relief from judgment, finding that all arguments were previously asserted and resolved at trial.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-04-30
The court held that the defendant failed to show good cause for an untimely amendment and did not establish grounds for reconsideration of the prior dismissal order.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-04-17
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and request for leave to file a second amended complaint.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-03-29
The court held that a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise new arguments, or present evidence that could have been raised prior to judgment.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-11-29
The court held that a party seeking to amend a complaint after a dismissal order and judgment must meet the standards of Rules 59(e) or 60(b), and that the plaintiff failed to show good cause for untimely amendment under Rule 16(b) or demonstrate diligence.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-11-07
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a new trial or to alter the judgment, finding no prejudicial errors in jury instructions or evidentiary rulings, and affirmed the prior grant of summary judgment on the design defect claim.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-08-07
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration because it failed to present new evidence or demonstrate manifest errors of law or fact, and instead sought to relitigate previously decided issues.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-07-26
The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for recusal, motion for supplemental pleading, and motion for a temporary restraining order, while granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motions to dismiss.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-07-14
The court denied the plaintiff's motions for relief from judgment and sanctions, finding no newly discovered evidence, fraud on the court, or manifest error of law, and that the plaintiff improperly raised Rule 11 sanctions.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-07-13
The court held that a certificate of appealability is required to appeal the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion in a § 2254 proceeding, and the applicant failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-03-31
The court denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration, finding no manifest error of law or fact in the prior denial of his motion to vacate sentence.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-03-20
The court granted in part and denied in part the motion for reconsideration, allowing the plaintiff one final opportunity to amend his official capacity claim against the Sheriff, but denying reconsideration of the dismissal of official capacity claims against the deputies.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-12-20
The court held that the plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the order granting summary judgment must be denied because the submitted evidence was not newly discovered and could have been presented earlier.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-12-12
The court denied all of Petitioner's post-conviction motions, finding none merited relief and denying a certificate of appealability for any future appeal.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-10-12
The court held that a motion to vacate judgment and reinstate a case, filed within twenty-eight days, should be treated as a Rule 59(e) motion and granted to prevent manifest injustice, allowing the plaintiff to correct jurisdictional defects.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-06-22
The court held that a Rule 59(e) motion cannot be used to present evidence that could have been raised earlier or to relitigate issues, and denied the motion as a result.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2022-05-09
The court held that under Kentucky law, prejudgment interest is not available for unliquidated personal injury claims, including those for noneconomic damages.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-03-29
The court denied plaintiff's motions for reconsideration and relief from judgment because she failed to present valid grounds under Rules 59(e) and 60(b).
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-03-08
The court granted the plaintiff's motion to amend the final judgment to include prejudgment interest, finding entitlement from the date of conversion.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-02-25
The court held that plaintiffs waived arguments not raised in initial briefing and that the series-qualifier canon, not the last-antecedent doctrine, applied to the insurance policy's coverage clause, denying reconsideration.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-02-23
The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration because they failed to demonstrate newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact, and the arguments presented were either immaterial, already decided, or untimely.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-11-24
The court denied the plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment, finding no clear error or manifest injustice in the prior grant of summary judgment.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-04-19
The court denied the defendant's motion for reconsideration because the defendant failed to present new evidence, intervening law, or clear error, and instead attempted to relitigate issues already decided.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-03-08
The court held that a motion to amend under Rule 15(a) is untimely after a final judgment has been entered and appealed, and that motions for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) and relief under Rule 60(b) were also untimely or lacked merit.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-12-07
The court denied the petitioner's motion to alter or amend the judgment.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-10-14
The court held that while the plaintiff's breach of contract claim was preempted by Section 301 and thus arose under federal law, it would not be reinstated as a Section 301 claim because the plaintiff failed to plead exhaustion of contractual remedies and the claim was not a hyb